I'll vote for whomever I please, you fuckers!

The BBQ Pit
21

This is incorrect. Think about it this way. Suppose two cases, one you vote, the other you don’t. Is the election outcome different? How many times do you have to repeat the thought experiment with different elections under different circumstances before the result of the two cases is different?

The answer: more times than it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. The likelihood that your vote is pivotal in a presidential election is smaller than being hit by lightning but perhaps greater than random quantum teleportation of your entire body.

22

Heh, cool. I think we should re-name this the Eonwe Principle.

Ok, then you seem to have misspoke, or attributed a desired purpose to 3rd party voters that is different than their actual purpose.

I didn’t vote for Nader (for example) because I expected him to win. Nor did most people who voted for him (I imagine. I also admit that those who did think he would win were irrational). I voted for him to express my opinion on a number of things; who I’d like to be president (not who I thought would be president), my support of non-establishmentarian politicians, my support of Nader’s views on the democratic process, and my support of some of his political opinions. In that sense, it was a perfectly rational thing to do.

Fuck you. This is not a conversation about Ralph Nader. Go shit somewhere else.

23

As I said in the other Pit thread about Nader, in 2000 the idea was to get 5% of the votes, thereby getting matching funds for the Green Party. This would help that party become a viable 3rd party, which IMO this country desperately needs. It so totally didn’t work out that way, but who could have known that the Election of 2000 would be so fucked for so many reasons?

I agree with you. Nader tried but failed. I thought he could do it 8 years ago when I first got involved with the Green Party, but I don’t think so anymore. Not because I dislike Nader, but because overall sentiment against him has gone negative. Either someone else with more credibility needs to step up, or the strategy of 3rd parties needs to change. Preferably both.

24

I’m going to say what I said in the other thread about this, but since the philosophical approach didn’t seem to hit home, I’m going to phrase it a little differently.

Even if voting for the candidate of your choice were “wasting votes”, it fucking well WOULDN’T be if people would wake the fuck up and see this line of “thinking” for the lazy-ass pile of circular-reasoning horseshit that it is. Do you honestly believe 90+ percent of the voting public falls in more in line with the Democrat or Republican candidates than any other eligible person? Of course not, but god forbid they vote for anyone else, because then they’d be wasting votes, because nobody but those two people stands any chance of getting elected, because nobody votes for them. See the problem yet, genuises? Obviously not, so by all means, let me clarify. If nobody votes for anyone else because nobody ELSE votes for anyone else, nobody will EVER vote for anyone else and the same goddamned motherfucking two-party hegemon you insipid assholes sigh and claim you’d change if only there was anything you could possibly do about it will continue to exist in perpetuity because that line of “thinking”, or more accurately “I’m-too-fucking-lazy-to-actually-think-about-the-source-of-the-problem-so-let’s-just-go-along-with-it BULLSHIT”, is exactly what created it in the first fucking place!

“Gee, it sure would be nice if there were other options besides Democrats and Republicans!” Yeah, it would, wouldn’t it? Well guess what? BAM! I just magically fucking altered every ballot in every polling place in the U.S. to include more than those two options! In fact, I’m so good, you may even think that those boxes were there before, expect that now you might possibly note that they’re not just there for decoration!

You want a U.S. in which we can elect a candidate from another party? Well, fuck, how do we go about that; how does someone get elected? After copious research, it seems that candidates get elected when people vote for them. So…are you a person? Do you vote? Gee, what could you possibly do about this? Why, maybe, just maybe, you could STOP BEING GODDAMNED DEFEATIST FUCKING SHEEP and comprehend that the reason nothing ever changes is because everyone is too busy sitting around waiting for everyone else to change it! No one is asking you to lay down your lives for the sake of a revolution; all you have to do is hit a goddamned button! Be a rebel! Fight the power! You can do it! Or, you can just shrug your shoulders, accept the path of least resistance, and opt for the lesser of two evils when not a goddamned thing in the world is stopping you from choosing good instead.

You have every right to choose the latter, but if you do, you had best not fucking try to take the moral high ground against those of us with the integrity to express our opinions honestly.

25

Bloomberg

26

If you want to support third party candidates, do your part to support approval voting. As Maeglin mentioned above, third parties aren’t viable in a first-past-the-post system.

27

I am sorry, this is just not true. I strongly disliked Bush/Cheney woh had sandbagged my candidate of choice and I dislike Al Gore who came off as a robotic wind up toy devoid of all character with a wife that I already despised.

Now, Al Gore has won me over in the last 7 years with his post election revealing that he was human. Additionally Bush was far worse than I ever conceived. He seriously damaged by over the top faith in our nation. I never expected the level that Bush/Cheney would sink too.

I regret not voting for Al Gore and partially made up for it in 2004 by voting for Kerry who I cannot stand and his sidekick who I think is a sleazebag.

At the time, I voted for Nader, I was voting as a Green and voting in the belief that it would be a positive thing is a third party could grow.

Of course Gore won my state with ease anyway, but Nadar polled well in 2000 in New Jersey.

In summary I did not vote Nadar as I thought Gore had it wrapped up. If anything, as a Republican (soon to be independent), it was Bush that I sandbagged.

Jim

28

You are right, but think of what one person in Florida could have done in the year 2000? How hard would it have been to reach 600 undecided voters in the month before the election. In hindsight, any one person could have changed that outcome.

I think everyone here, including the OP is right. If you vote for Nader thinking he will win, then you will waste your vote, not to mention need to have your head examined. But if you are voting a protest against the top two candidates, then you haven’t wasted your vote, IF you realize that you gave up your “real” vote in order to make that protest.

Here is my Really Good Idea: I am a libertarian-leaning Republican, and I like the Libertarian platform. If any pollster calls me, I will say I am voting Libertarian, and I think everyone else should tell a pollster who they support the MOST regardless of how they will really vote. Then when these minor parties show up in the polls near the top, then we REALLY switch our vote over and make it count.

Think of the many people in this country who really don’t have a chance to vote: DEMS in Texas or South Carolina. They might as well drink whiskey all day on election day. How about GOP voters in Washington, D.C. Fire up a big spliff on election day, because you will have as much chance of getting your vote to count as you would by voting…

29

Bravo to the OP!

30

Brilliant.

And as far as I am concerned, the only people who waste their votes are the ones who don’t vote at all.

31

If it’s going to be that close then the onus is on the large parties to attract the votes that would otherwise go to third parties.

Marc

32

I’m sure the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq are just peachy with the idea that you voted Nader. Think of all the flowers the rotting bodies of their children are nourishing.

What? It’s the pit, right? We’re supposed to be assholes here.

33

I think our primary process helps minimize the negatives of an entrenched two-party system. Consider the range from Kucinich to Huckabee or Keyes (or Paul). It doesn’t cover the entire political spectrum, sure. But it covers a heck of a lot of it. The gap between Kucinich and Nader on policy is pretty damn narrow. And there’s no conspiracy within the party to keep them down. Huckabee came out of nowhere and did reasonably well.

If Nader has ideas that are popular enough to win him the presidency, why not have him run as a Democrat, like Ron Paul is doing now as a Republican? You certainly don’t need any endorsement from the establishment to do so. And the label doesn’t force you to adopt any positions or campaign in any way you think compromises your position. Some Greens would have to register as Democrats, but only in some states, and they can easily switch back–it has worked reasonably well for Paul. People would be able to vote for him in the primary without fear that their votes will equal a Republican, so it would eliminate the excuse that he doesn’t get more votes for fear of a spoiler. So why doesn’t he do that?

It isn’t about corporate structure or any bullshit like that. Obama has raised his money mostly from donations under $250, and hasn’t accepted any PAC or corporate lobbyist money. If he can build a movement like that without the support of the party or entrenched interests, why can’t Nader? What part of the primary structure prevents candidates like Nader from taking over a party if they have the support?

34

I think the onus is also on the large parties to motivate more people who are eligible to vote but didn’t vote at all to a) vote and b) vote for their party. How can we really say what is the will of the people unless a majority of the people vote?

I also voted for Nader in 2000 on principle. I want more viable political parties, even ones I don’t agree with. I want the Election Commission to not be run by Democrats and Republicans. I want people to feel like they do have a party that reflects their interests, more importantly with candidates for the Legislative Branch.

35

I guess for me the crux of it is that I have little sympathy for whining Democrats when no one important in that party supports any measures that would reduce the alleged spoiler effect and open up our democratic process: instant runoff voting, the abolition of the electoral college, etc. When Democrats talk of “compromise” they mean you’re gonna compromise.

36

And fuck you also. Did you read the OP or any of the discussion that follows? How do you feel about any of it. You’re a fucking asshole who came in here to spout lame-ass shit that has fuck-all to do with the OP.

This is not about Nader. This is not about the 2000 election. It’s about political process.

As an aside, is that the sort of comment you whip out whenever you’re in a discussion with anyone who voted for Bush, or who voted for a senator or congressperson who approved the war? What a sad and narrow existence you must lead.

I mean, come on! Nader voters are responsible for dead babies in Iraq? Grow the fuck up and learn how to look at a situation without your crazy-goggles on.

37

You’ll forgive me if i express some skepticism about your claim to know what the strategies and motivations of Nader voters were.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

I have no problem with people who decide to vote for a major party candidate. If they decide that this is the best thing to do, and that they are concerned with getting the least-bad candidate into office, then that’s their prerogative. If someone prefers Nader or Paul, but chooses to vote for Gore or McCain due to practical considerations, then that’s their right, and i completely support them.

The main thing i hate about the anti-third-party expressions in the US is the way that so many Democrats and Republicans act like their parties own the people’s votes, and that voting for a third-party candidate is somehow a violation of democratic principles. The whining fucking Democrats after the 2000 election were a particularly egregious example.

Gore should have won that election in a canter. The economy was strong, Clinton was popular despite (hell, maybe even because of his blowjob, and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. The situation could scarcely have been better for a Democratic Presidential candidate. The fact that Gore was able to lose that election is testimony to one of the worst campaigns in political history, and the idea that it was the fault of a few thousand Nader votes is one of the most egregious examples of ostrich-like buck-passing i’ve ever seen.

38

I’m not sure you’re entirely correct. Duverger’s Law aside, voting for a 3rd party that represents your interests should be in your longer term better interest because the major candidates should then consider why the losing major candidate lost to appeal to that constituency (i.e. you) next time.

Even in the short term, suppose there were two major candidates A & B but that lots of people liked candidate C but voted for A or B fearing that a vote for C would mean the election of B or A? Whereas in fact, if everyone who wanted C to win had voted for C, then C would have been elected.

Honesty’s the better policy.

39

Yeah, if only Gore had run a more effective campaign.

Marc

40

I understand the argument of 3rd party voters and can sympathize with it, but I have to wonder why the election is treated as the only hope of getting your voice heard. Can’t we all agree that a lot is at stake when we’re voting for the president? Voting for someone who has no realistic chance of winning in order to make a political statement is like starting a discussion with your spouse about putting the seat down while the house is on fire.

You can “vote” for 3rd party candidates by donating to their campaigns. You can vote for them in the primaries. You can insist they be included in debates so their positions can be aired. You can show your support to them by helping them campaign. Put bumper stickers on your car. Sing their praises on the internet. If few people aren’t willing to do any of this, then the 3rd party candidate will always be marginalized. Getting a few hundred thousand votes in the general election is not really going to change anything because just as long as their guy gets in office, why should the other two parties care? Does anyone really think that the Dems and Reps had a wake up call in 2000, when they saw how many people voted for the Nader? If anything, that whole fiasco caused a backlash against 3rd party candidates. It didn’t really help anyone.

To me, the election should be about selecting the right person to be president, not about trying to stick it the man. I haven’t seen any indication that voting like that is an effective means of shaking the status quo. But I think other things (like funding campaigns) would go a lot further.